« What's that thing nature abhors, again? | Main | AT&T's Latest Censorship »

October 01, 2007

Comments

The Iran drumbeat for war sounds like war for war's sake.

Cheney has decided a war must start--he is casting about for the "Maine" or the "Gulf of Tonkin".

I see no bona fide geo-political goal here, no military goal, no benefit (only harm) to the US economy.

Only US politics--a chance to use a use military action against a foreign enemy as a campaign issue to keep the GOP in power.

I seem to have missed a whole round of 'rational' for the Iranian war.

I think the nuk thing can be dismissed. All the previous 'evidence' that Iran has been arming the Shia (which admittedly they might have an interest in doing) has been fake. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have already unpegged their exchanges from the petro-dollar. More debt to China is not going to benefit us. We can't get oil out of much oil out of Iraq, never mind how long and how much blood money we would have to spend to get money out of Iran. Chiana, Russia, and India have vested interests in not having their contracts broken with Iran, nevermind what they would think of a United States of the Mideast (occupied territories).

Yes we could provoke a war. But what on earth would are they thinking we would get out of a war?

IOKIYAR gives a fresh start to thoughtful war talk . This cleans the or wipes the board as if other perhaps less useful promotional sales talks fail to move the product line . So get ready for our Fall line Extravaganza , Wheee !
The fun has just begun
gun gun gun begun

The sad thing is that that fruitcake Ahmadinejad is showing more maturity than our current regime by NOT falling for the "headfakes" attempted by the British and Americans, by not being pulled "offsides". That is a smart, mature thing since the "refs" have the bullhorn and GUNS!

From a quick Google news scan for "Iran", most of the other countries understand that.

sailmaker,

Don't assume that the folks who want to get us into a war with Iran want to ever get us out of that war. Just like Iraq, not having a definable goal is a feature, not a bug. This manufactured crisis with Iran is about keeping us at war in the Middle East forever. The sure way for these vile cretins to escape responsibility for their folly is to get others to buy in to it.

Hi Marcy,
This is off the subject but I wanted to make sure that you know that Charlie Savage will be speaking tomorrow night at 7:30 at the Gerald Ford Library on North Campus in Ann Arbor. Katie

One major goal threatened war with Iran accomplishes is to shift the focus of attention and conversation of Congress and the public away from the criminality of Cheney/Bush.

Re Marcy's 'real reasons' blocked quote regarding Cheney:

"Vice President Dick Cheney was philosophical about the possibility of a Democratic president fundamentally reversing the policies that he and Bush have worked so hard to implement in Iraq.

“It’s the nature of the business, in a sense,” he shrugged during an interview in his West Wing office. “I mean, you get two terms. We were fortunate to get two terms. And I think we’ll increasingly see a lot of emphasis on deciding who the next occupant of the Oval Office is going to be.”

I wouldn't go so far as to say he's counting his chickens before they're hatched, but Cheney sounds like someone whose goal right now is to actually complete two terms. To the extent that it shifts energy and inertia away from impeachable offenses, BushCo threatening war with Iran arguably could be helping that end.
.

The dollar economy won't collapse the day after Bush attacks Iran - but it will be mortally wounded. As much as Bush and Cheney want to believe Money performs according to Ideology, the truth is Money performs according to Risk and Credit.

Bush and Cheney = High Risk and No Credit

Goopers wake-up!

Attacking Iran is the over-reach that will strain US to exhaustion.

After 8 rounds of swinging away - not listening to his corner or the crowd - Bush is about to Rope-a-Dope himself, and all of US. It's a highly predictable, well known to history, Hubristic pattern of Resource Collapse that fells Bullies Running Amok in Nature everywhere.

See this article (h/t emptywheel) - http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/160594/chalmers_johnson_nemesis_on_the_imperial_premises

Goopers! Put down your Pride before the Cliff comes! Throw in the towel on Bush and Cheney.

Shorter Deadeye: "Rationale? I don't need no steekin' rationale."

W.O. Thank you.

I'm still not getting it - perpetual war (IMO) is not sustainable because modern warfare, at least the kind we do, is just too expensive. We have lost our manufacturing base so we can no longer grow the economy to get rid of the debt. So while perpetual warfare does enrich the Halliburtons, the Blackwaters, the Lockheeds of the military industrial complex, won't there come a day when the cookie jar of the general treasury is basically empty, the general populace too poor to ante up more treasure (with the politicians too whimpy to ask for it), and China/India no longer willing to accept our IOUs? And if so, I wonder what 'peak economy' ; the point at which the economy can not stand the strain of more war, might be. I fear we have already passed that point.

Like Daniel Davies says, 'Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance.'

I really do not think that Bush/Cheney see any kind of a long term plan other than destroying the oil cartel and making money in the process. I don't think they are at all concerned about america, but are blindsided (as all good authoritarians, narcissists are) about their place in history and trying desperately to fix what they have broken.

In their simplistic thinking, they must save themselves by saving the country and coming out "heros". They must prove their position right at all costs. That means they must take a high risk position and win.

This is desperation talking. It's not reason. It's not tied to market analysis or the economy. None of the "experts" support this idea. It's the authoritarians who like the idea and those who naively hang onto the sound bite that war is good for the economy. I think some dream America could control the oil cartel someday!!

Most of us, with a semblance of mental health see great value in establishing alternative sources of energy...and breaking the oil cartel in both america...and abroad. But there are many authoritarians who can't get their brains around this idea. It means they failed. Do not look to this crowd to ever...ever...be able to face that reality. It's not part of the authoritarian pyschic.

In my opinion, this is a very scary time. These current leaders are not interested in reason, or the welfare of the people. This is about desperately saving face, for themselves.

sailmaker,

katie jensen has it mostly right. If you're familiar with the work of Jared Diamond, you will understand when I say that BushCo is doing to the Earth what the leaders of Rapa Nui (Easter Island) did 500 years ago. They are involved in what they think is an eternal struggle for raw materials dominance when the very methods they use are self-limiting.

i don't doubt cheney's fanaticism for a minute - he was, after all, one of two congressmen who, some years ago, voted against banning plastic guns.

the man had a rather unique perspective on the world.

nonetheless,

if you are a president and an administration

or a monarchy,

or a despotism,

or a right-wing preacher,

experiencing public rejection and/or growing qualms among the faithful,

what do you do?

well, what have such folks done since adam?

you manufacture an outside threat to your group and start a war.

war obliterates virtually all criticism of seignior m.'s "prince"

- or of a president or a preacher.

I disagree with some of comments here. Iranian bombing is not about impeachment defense, as there is no impeachment threat, or any other threat, from this congress. Congress has proven this beyond any doubt. And I don't see how it can possibly be about Iranian oil.

The rationale operating in the WH is, I believe that:

1. Iran must be knocked down a peg militarily, for the benefit of Iraq stability;
2. Iran nukular program must be knocked back by some number of years, preventing any chance (1%) of successful development by this hostile and evil regime, and allowing time for regime change to a new, more western-friendly management. Like the Shah's son, somebody like that.

katie

Thanks for the reminder. I'm traveling like crazy for the next three weeks, so I'll probably be home packing and visiting with mr. emptywheel. Which is unfortunate, bc Savage rocks.

Please see the account in the English newspaper, The Mail on Sunday, of George Bush's emissary to the UK. The article is bad enough; the picture is devastating.

Ms. Cagan is dressed in a skin tight, read leather outfit, with an Iron Cross-like bauble on her chest, and greased hair look from Cabaret. The image is as bellicose as the message; no doubt, that was the intended effect on her majesty's opposition party. Ms. Cagan looks as if she's just woken up in cellars of a decrepit Whitby Abbey next to the count, ready for a night's feeding. The policies she advocates match that look precisely.

Admittedly, Ms. Cagan is a senior political appointee in Mr. Bush's Pentagon, presumably pre-dating Bob Gates. But rattling the sabers and disdaining diplomacy in such crude and violent ways is what makes the world fear, distrust or hate America more than those we identify as our enemies.

Frau Cagan, "I hate all Iranians!"

I thought this whole thing would play out as an attack on our troops in Iraq by Iran, and retaliation. I wondered whether the attack would be provoked or perhaps false flag. I never figured the prevention of nukes would work as an excuse to get into a war with Iran.

I saw an interesting article by Kevin Drum, which references a statement made by Dana Priest last week:

BOMBING IRAN....The Washington Post's Dana Priest opines that if the White House decides to bomb Iran, "the military would revolt and there would be no pilots to fly those missions." Matt Yglesias isn't convinced: ...
Link to CBS News

A short while ago I heard a snippet on C-SPAN about an offer from Iran to help with Iraq:
LONDON (Reuters) - Iran will help the United States stabilise neighbouring Iraq if Washington sets out a timetable for a withdrawal of its troops, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator said in an interview published on Monday. Link


and also heard something about their nuclear abilities being much further along than previously reported. I haven't found a link for that yet.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad